Only the pretext of an impending nuclear weapon in a couple of weeks was cheap but for the remainder, his analysis seems to be engaging enough.
Realistically, critiques of Trump’s intervention always hinged on its success or failure. So far, the military operation seems a success. It is hard to envision methods by which Iran could sustain a war against enemies who have no desire to set one foot on its ground.
He also had an interesting read in some of his followup interviews on what an actual regime change in Iran would end up looking like. That being, while it is true that the people would want to overthrow the Ayatollahs (especially in light of this conflict), they dont have the organizational capacity because it was destroyed in their failed uprising in 2009. But the anger will still exist, at seeing hundreds of billions (or even trillions) of dollars over decades spent on terrorist movements, sleeper cells, and nuclear agendas going up in smoke, and the military cant even defend them from the threat as they are so impotent that Israel rules their skies and is even conducting daylight raids. They just dont have the power to act on that anger.
However, the Military will become a scapegoat for this failure. But all of the entrenched, regime-friendly officers are now dead, and the younger officers they would have suppressed are now the ones with the reins of power. And VDH proposes that the most likely outcome of "regimen change" will be that the surviving Iranian Military say "This was not our failure, it was theirs", executes the Ayatollahs, and institutes what is for all intents and purposes a military dictatorship similar to what currently exist in Egypt.
Could be interesting but I doubt they'll execute the ayatollahs. Most of those military personnel are probably religious fanatics themselves. They could strip the ayatollahs of their institutional power, though.
He's still a boomer, and boomers love Israel.
He has always been a neocon.
Only the pretext of an impending nuclear weapon in a couple of weeks was cheap but for the remainder, his analysis seems to be engaging enough.
We'll see how it turns out.
He also had an interesting read in some of his followup interviews on what an actual regime change in Iran would end up looking like. That being, while it is true that the people would want to overthrow the Ayatollahs (especially in light of this conflict), they dont have the organizational capacity because it was destroyed in their failed uprising in 2009. But the anger will still exist, at seeing hundreds of billions (or even trillions) of dollars over decades spent on terrorist movements, sleeper cells, and nuclear agendas going up in smoke, and the military cant even defend them from the threat as they are so impotent that Israel rules their skies and is even conducting daylight raids. They just dont have the power to act on that anger.
However, the Military will become a scapegoat for this failure. But all of the entrenched, regime-friendly officers are now dead, and the younger officers they would have suppressed are now the ones with the reins of power. And VDH proposes that the most likely outcome of "regimen change" will be that the surviving Iranian Military say "This was not our failure, it was theirs", executes the Ayatollahs, and institutes what is for all intents and purposes a military dictatorship similar to what currently exist in Egypt.
Could be interesting but I doubt they'll execute the ayatollahs. Most of those military personnel are probably religious fanatics themselves. They could strip the ayatollahs of their institutional power, though.